Organizational Support for Action Learning in South Korean ...

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 24, no. 2, Summer 2013 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21154 185

Organizational Support for Action Learning in South Korean Organizations

Yonjoo Cho, Toby Egan

The purpose of this study was (1) to examine the impact of organizational support on employee learning and performance and (2) to elaborate on the context of organizational support for action learning in South Korean organizations. For this inquiry, two central questions were posed: What are employee reactions to organizational support for action learning? And what are key elements of organizational support for action learning? Framed by organizational support theory (OST), this study involved a mixed methods research design, including (1) a survey involving 268 action learning participants and their supervisors from 28 participating companies asked to report their perceptions of their organizations’ support of action learning and (2) one-on-one, semistructured interviews with 34 HR managers and executives aimed at elaborating on the nature of support for action learning in their organization. Study fi ndings support OST and indicate that South Korean organizations support action learning in a variety of ways and that such support was a critical factor in the success of their action learning efforts.

Action learning (AL) is a process and tool that enables individuals and groups to learn while solving problems and implementing actions (Marquardt & Banks, 2010). The popularity of AL has grown as a result of linking tangible outcomes and relevance to real organizational issues. AL has been particularly effective in building problem-solving skills, team building, leadership, and organization development in many industries and countries (Dilworth & Boshyk, 2010; O’Neil & Marsick, 2007; Pedler, 2011; Raelin, 2008). Although an increasingly utilized practice, research on AL is scant and there have been calls for empirical studies examining AL systematically and with greater depth (Cho & Egan, 2009, 2010).

The number of organizations utilizing AL is rapidly increasing in South Korea. Companies engage actively in AL as a tool for leadership and

186 Cho, Egan

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

organization development to improve their competitive advantage and adapt to rapidly changing global markets. The extent of support for AL by many organizations makes South Korea an important hub of AL practice (personal communication with M. J. Marquardt, July 25, 2010). What is not understood about this AL practice is the nature of support provided by these organiza-tions, employee reactions to their organizational support for AL, and related outcomes.

The purpose of this study is to examine AL’s impact on employee affect, learning, and performance, and to elaborate on the context of organizational support for AL in South Korean organizations. This study involved a sequen-tial mixed methods research design, including (1) a survey involving 268 AL participants and their supervisors from 28 companies asked to report their perceptions of their organizations’ support for AL; and (2) one-on-one, semistructured interviews with 34 HR managers and executives aimed at elab-orating on the nature of support for AL in participating organizations. The mixed methods design utilized in this study was informed by organizational support theory, tested by a related conceptual model examining the impact of organizational support for AL, and used interviews to examine the nature of support for AL.

Action Learning

AL’s founding father, Reg Revans, fi rst used the term action learning in pub-lished form in 1972, though he had formed his approach to action learning and had been refi ning it for some time—beginning in the 1940s (Boshyk & Dilworth, 2010, p. 147). A prime diffi culty in researching AL is the lack of an agreed-upon defi nition (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Brook, 2005). Revans did not defi ne AL but described it in terms of what it is not (e.g., a case study or a task force) because he believed that to define it would constrain its meaning (Revans, 2011). As a result, many defi nitions and variants of AL have been used, including business-driven AL (Boshyk & Dilworth, 2010), critical AL (Vince, 2004, 2008), work-based learning (Raelin, 2008), and virtual AL (Dickenson, Burgoyne, & Pedler, 2010).

Various frameworks have been used to analyze AL projects; however, many of these focus on the combination of two consistent themes (Revans, 1982, 2011): real, work-based issues (Raelin, 2008; Vince, 2004, 2008) and team learning (Edmonson, Dillon, & Roloff, 2008; Senge, 1990). AL is based on the pedagogical notion that people learn most effectively when working on real-time problems occurring in their own work settings (Raelin, 2008; Revans, 2011). Senge (1990) suggested that teams are the fundamental learn-ing unit in an organization; teams play a crucial role in organizational learning (Edmonson et al., 2008). People learn best when they refl ect together with like-minded colleagues, comrades in adversity in Revans’s terms (Revans, 1982, p. 720), on real problems occurring in their own organizations.

Organizational Support for Action Learning in South Korean Organizations 187


A critical issue involved in AL practice is the balancing act between action and learning in the AL process (Cho & Egan, 2009, 2010). Revans empha-sized the need for conceptual and practical balance between action and learn-ing in his seminal remark, “There is no action without learning and there is no learning without action” (Revans, 2011, p. 74). The real value of AL that dif-ferentiates it from other action strategies (e.g., action research) is a pragmatic focus on learning for the sake of problem solving (Raelin, 2008). Related lit-erature suggests that AL programs should be carefully implemented to ensure balance between action and learning (Kuhn & Marsick, 2005; Tushman, O’Reilly, Fenollosa, Kleinbaum, & McGrath, 2007). An unbalanced approach to AL is not productive, as action without learning is unlikely to return fruitful longer-term results, and learning without action does not facilitate change (Cho & Egan, 2009, 2010).

Recently, organizational support surfaced as a key success factor for such balanced AL practice (Cho & Egan, 2009, 2010; Cho & Bong, 2010; J. Kim, 2007; Seo, 2009). For example, J. Kim (2007), through a survey of 288 par-ticipants from 10 Korean companies, identifi ed two success factors of AL prac-tice: team processes and organizational support systems. Organizational support systems, in J. Kim’s (2007) study, emphasized the strong involvement of senior executives (sponsors). These studies provide such a potential link between AL research and organizational support research.

Problem Statement

Despite strong evidence of continuous growth in AL practice and extensive AL narratives related in practice-focused literature, no identifi ed studies have examined the outcomes of organizational support for AL. Given the broad investment in AL practice, research examining AL-related outcomes is needed. Better research designs, such as a sequential mixed methods research design (Creswell & Clark, 2011; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010) presented herein, will provide a clearer understanding regarding the potential benefi ts of AL for employee affective reactions, learning, and performance, and elaborate on the impact of organizational support for AL (for brevity, often referred to in this article as “support for AL”).

Although Reio (2009) expressed the strong need for emergent research designs in HRD, such as mixed methods, mixed methods research is virtually nonexistent, particularly in the HRD “fl agship” Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ) journal. For example, three most recent, related articles identifi ed in the journal over the past 5 years involved quantitative analysis only (Choi & Jacobs, 2011; Ehrhardt, Miller, Freeman, & Hom, 2011; Madera, Steele, & Beier, 2011). These studies showed evidence of the role of perceived organizational support on training utility perceptions (Madera et al., 2011); the relationship between employee training perceptions and organiza-tional commitment (Ehrhardt et al., 2011); and the influence of formal

188 Cho, Egan


learning on informal learning (Choi & Jacobs, 2011). However, these studies lack qualitative details and context.

Our report of a recent study in a South Korean context will contribute as one of the few systematically developed cross-organizational examinations of AL. A sequential mixed methods research design used in this study includes an examination of the impact of organizational support for AL on key employee attitudes and outcomes—satisfaction, fi t, motivation, and perfor-mance. Qualitative elaboration on the ways South Korean organizations sup-port AL is explored sequentially.

Consistent with the nature of mixed methods studies (Bryman, 2006; Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Clark, 2011; Morse, 2010; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010), our aim is to develop a broad understanding regarding organizational support for AL and employee perceptions to such support. We integrate quan-titative and qualitative methods in this study for “enhancement” in Bryman’s (2006, p. 107) classifi cation scheme for mixed methods research in order to build upon quantitative fi ndings by augmenting qualitative fi ndings.

Theoretical Frame and Literature Review

Organization support theory (OST) (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986) proposed that employees form overarching beliefs regarding the extent to which their organization supports their needs and values their con-tributions. A key indicator associated with OST, perceived organizational sup-port (POS), is a valued assurance to employees that they are supported by their organizations in carrying out their jobs effectively.

Theoretical Frame

Consistent with OST, POS is enforced by the tendency of employees to assign a general reaction to the organization. Levinson (1965) suggested that organi-zational policies and culture help to support employee perceptions regarding the specifi c characteristics and features of organizational support. The under-lying assumption—when individuals receive resources that are perceived to be provided discretionarily—is that voluntary provisions are more highly valued than those provided out of obligation.

The strength of OST is the inclusion of clear and testable antecedents and outcomes (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore, 1995). Several orga-nizational characteristics have been identified as key antecedents of POS including: fairness, supervisor support, organizational rewards, and job condi-tions. In the context of OST and POS, HRD-related practices can be viewed by employees as organizational characteristics that communicate organization values, support employee development, and improve employee job conditions (Ellinger, Elmadag, & Ellinger, 2007).



A relatively small number of articles have examined HRD-related efforts (e.g., training) as part of POS (Kroth & Keeler, 2009; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Through an investigation of the relationship between HRD-practices and employee affective reactions (e.g., organizational commitment), Bartlett (2001), Bartlett and Kang (2004), and Wayne et al. (1997) have contextual-ized HRD-practices as organizational actions. Such framing supports OST and Levinson’s (1965) perspective of which aspects of organizational efforts can be reacted to by individuals as personifi ed organizational characteristics.

Prior research fi ndings support OST’s general premise that an organiza-tion’s support of employee development through HRD-related efforts leads to greater employee commitment (Bartlett & Kang, 2004; Fornes, Rocco, & Wollard, 2008), sense of fi t with the organization (Wayne et al., 1997), reduc-tions in turnover (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003), and increases in productiv-ity (Cullen & Turnbull, 2005). A key antecedent related to OST is the role of supervisors or organizational agents (e.g., HRD leaders) in influencing employee POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Eisenberger et al. (1986) suggested that POS is an antecedent of job sat-isfaction. Riggle, Edmondson, and Hansen’s (2009) meta-analysis, covering 20 years of research of POS, found strong relationships between POS and job satisfaction (r = 0.61, p < 0.001). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) also iden-tifi ed associations between POS and performance, as have Riggle et al. (2009). Wayne et al. (1997) suggested that HRD practices align with employee per-ceptions of an organization’s values and relate to employee perception of fi t and POS.

A few studies examining HRD-related organizational characteristics in relation to POS commonly examine employee perceptions of a particular orga-nizational characteristic (e.g., policies) and the impact of that characteristic on POS. An alternative approach has been to examine POS for a particular prac-tice as a single organizational characteristic. For example, Tucker, Chmiel, Turner, Hershcovis, and Stride (2008) used OST and its association to social exchange theory (Gouldner, 1960; Shore, Coyle-Shapiro, Chen, & Tetrick, 2009) to suggest that the formation of a safety-oriented environment could be viewed as a voluntary act of organizational support. Other supportive HR practices also indicate that investment in employees is associated with POS (Allen et al., 2003); POS has been found to mediate relationships between these practices, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger, Cummings, Armelo, & Lynch, 1997).

Consistent with the formation of a theoretical study frame and the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Kline, 2010), Figure 1 was informed by the aforementioned research related to OST and POS in the context of HRD-related interventions, job satisfaction, person–organization fit, motivation to transfer, and employee performance outcomes.

190 Cho, Egan


Although OST-related studies in the context of HRD practices are grow-ing, no study elaborating on the nature of organizational support for AL or investigating the impact of such support on employees was identifi ed. Similar to the approach taken by Tucker et al. (2008), we examine the extent to which organizational support for AL relates to employee sense of satisfaction and fi t, motivation, and performance.

Literature Review

The review of literature is aligned with the purpose of the study, fi rst, by examining employee perceptions of organizational support for AL, and, second, by elaborating on how organizational support for AL occurs in partici-pating organizations. The literature review provides a context for the study by outlining key elements of AL, followed by a discussion of available literature related to organizational support for AL.

Organizational Support. Since Baldwin and Ford (1988) presented a framework for examining training transfer, research on three factors that affect transfer has been conducted: trainee characteristics, training design, and work environment (Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010). Work environment includes organizational support (e.g., supervisor). Blume et al. (2010), in their meta-analysis of 89 empirical studies of transfer of training, confi rmed posi-tive relationships between transfer and a supportive work environment.

Although AL has been rarely examined in relation to organizational sup-port for employee development, researchers have reported an association between organizational support for learning and employee affect and attitudes (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004). Such employee attitudes include satisfaction, motivation, and retention as they relate to overall learning and development

Figure 1. Hypothesized Model—Organizational Support for Action Learning, Employee Attitudes, Motivation, and Performance

Motivationto TransferLearning

Job Satisfaction

Person–Organization

Fit

Organizational Support for

AL

Individual Performance

Note. All paths are hypothesized to be positive.



(Kontoghiorghes, 2001). The manner in which intra- and interpersonal learning is supported through learning-oriented structures is a key aspect of organiza-tional support for learning (Marsick & Watkins, 2003).

OST suggests that employee perceptions of organizational support lead to positive, productive responses from employees. However, OST–AL intersec-tions have not been examined. Therefore, further understanding regarding how organizations can form, support, and improve learning and development is crucial for practice, research, and theory building in HRD. In particular, there is little information regarding why and how organizations support AL from an executive/managerial perspective. In this study, we elaborate on the nature of such organizational support for AL in a South Korean context.

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction is positively related to perceptions that an organization supports individual workers (Eisenberger et al., 1997). Job satisfaction is an attitude often considered the culmination of emotion/affect, values/beliefs, and behaviors (Weiss, 2002). Behavioral manifestations found in job satisfaction literature include turnover (Saari & Judge, 2004), absentee-ism (Wegge, Schmidt, Parkes, & van Dick, 2007), and citizenship (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Recent fi ndings indicate that intention to quit has a negative impact on performance orientation and low citizenship behavior (Krishnan & Singh, 2010).

Research fi ndings regarding job satisfaction and workplace performance have been mixed. The relationship of satisfaction to productivity is not neces-sarily straightforward and can be infl uenced by a number of other work-related constructs. In their meta-analysis, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001) found the uncorrected correlation between job satisfaction and pro-ductivity to be r = 0.18 and the corrected correlation to be r = 0.30. The authors showed that job complexity moderated job satisfaction and perfor-mance whereby the correlation between job satisfaction and performance is greater for jobs with high complexity (p = 0.52). In short, the relationship of satisfaction to productivity is not necessarily straightforward and can be infl u-enced by other work-related constructs.

Available research suggests that job satisfaction, as a work-related out-come, is determined by organizational culture and structure. S. Kim (2002) suggested that participative management incorporating effective supervisory communication can increase employees’ job satisfaction. Wagner and LePine (1999) in their meta-analysis revealed signifi cant impacts of job participa-tion and work performance on job satisfaction. In addition, leadership behaviors related to inspiring teamwork and rewarding high performance had significant effects on role clarity, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction (Gaertner, 2000).

Although the aforementioned studies have examined impacts of individ-ual dimensions related to job satisfaction, the infl uence of the full range of organizational support, including AL, on job satisfaction is not known. Based

192 Cho, Egan


on the hypothesized model (Figure 1) and the focus of the quantitative ele-ment of this study, we propose the following hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS 1: Employee perceptions of organizational support for AL will be posi-tively associated with their job satisfaction.

Person–Organization Fit. Person–organization (P-O) fi t is defi ned as the extent of compatibility between an individual and an organization (Kristof, 1996; Tom, 1971). A context in which individual characteristics, values, and goals are congruent with related organizational environments leads to positive work attitudes, intent to stay with the organization, and high organizational performance (Holland, 1997; Schneider, 1987).

Researchers have emphasized P-O fi t to be the key to maintaining com-mitted employees necessary for organizational success (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof, 1996). Chatman (1989) was particularly infl uential in emphasizing value fi t as central to the operationalization of P-O fi t. In addition, goal con-gruence (Vancouver & Schmidt, 1991; Witt & Nye, 1992) and organizational socialization of employees (Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005) have also been used as central operationalizing concepts for P-O fi t. Although P-O fi t has involved various operationalizations, the overarching landmark of the construct emphasizes personality fi t between individuals and organizations.

Extant research fi ndings indicate that a high level of P-O fi t is related to positive outcomes such as work performance (Tziner, 1987), organizational outcomes (Schneider, Kristof, Goldstein, & Smith, 1997), and turnover reduction (Schneider, 1987). Individuals with low P-O fi t often have low job satisfaction and low intent to stay with their current organization (Vancouver & Schmidt, 1991). For these reasons, those with low P-O fi t often lack satisfac-tion with their jobs—a factor highly associated with turnover.

No identifi ed studies have examined learning-related issues as indepen-dent and dependent variables in relation to P-O fi t. According to Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005), more research is needed to investigate P-O fi t in the context of organizational variables. The hypotheses associated with P-O fi t are as follows:

HYPOTHESIS 2: Employee perceptions of organizational support for AL will be posi-tively associated with employee perceptions of individual fi t with their organization.

HYPOTHESIS 3: Employee perceptions of individual fi t with their organization will be positively associated with their job satisfaction.

Motivation to Transfer Learning. Motivation to transfer learning (“motivation to transfer” hereafter) is described as “the trainees’ desire to use the knowledge and skills mastered in the training program on the job” (Noe, 1986, p. 743). Noe (1986) established the moderating effect of motiva-tion to transfer between learning and behavior change, and hypothesized that motivation to transfer was infl uenced by perceptions of task constraints and



work group support. The emergence of a wider variety of learning-related modalities led to motivation to transfer being framed in relation to other forms of workplace learning and development (Egan et al., 2004; Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000).

Recently, HRD researchers have been interested in research on motivation to transfer in line with organizational learning and culture (Egan, 2008; Egan et al., 2004; Kontoghiorghes, 2001). For instance, Egan (2008) examined the relationships among organizational culture, organizational subculture, leader-ship style, and motivation to transfer. Egan’s (2008) study results indicate that an innovative and supportive subculture has the greatest influence on employee application of learning and that localized leaders play a major role in infl uencing direct reports’ motivation to transfer. Such localized learning experiences are similar to the team environment common to AL.

Egan et al. (2004) also found a positive relationship between job satisfac-tion and motivation to transfer, as did Gegenfurtner, Veermans, Festner, and Gruber (2009) in their comprehensive review of motivation to transfer. Although no studies exploring the relationship between motivation to transfer and P-O fi t were identifi ed, Gegenfurtner et al. (2009) found associations between motivation to transfer and performance across extant studies to be moderate or small.

As HRD expands discussions regarding organizational learning from training to various learning contexts, motivation to transfer is defined as employees’ desire to transfer new knowledge gained from learning contexts including AL. The hypotheses associated with motivation to transfer learning are as follows:

HYPOTHESIS 4: Employee job satisfaction will be positively associated with their motivation to transfer learning.

HYPOTHESIS 5: Employee perceptions of fi t with their organization will be positively associated with motivation to transfer learning.

HYPOTHESIS 6: Employee motivation to transfer will be positively associated with reported performance.

Summary. The constructs reviewed (AL, organizational support, job satis-faction, P-O fi t, and motivation to transfer) are used in framing the current study and are further elaborated. In addition to asking a relevant question regarding the impact of support for AL on employee affect, motivation, and performance, qualitative elaboration for such support is aimed at enhancing our understand-ing of the impact of AL on employees, supervisors, and organizations.

Research Questions

The central focus of this study is, fi rst, to investigate the extent to which orga-nizational support for AL may impact employees by examining the

194 Cho, Egan


relationships between organizational support for AL, employee attitudes, motivation, and performance. Second, this study elaborates on the nature of organizational support for AL in South Korean organizations. Two questions guiding this inquiry are:

1. What is the relationship between perceived organizational support for AL and employee attitudes, motivation, and performance in South Korean organizations as identifi ed by AL participants and their supervisors?

2. What is the nature of organizational support for AL in South Korean organizations as identifi ed by HR managers and executives?

Methods

Over the past decade and a half, authors have clarifi ed several forms of inter-related research designs, including rationales for mixing quantitative and qualitative design, types of data collection and analysis, the emphasis(qualitative versus quantitative) in a given study, the sequence of implementa-tion (sequential versus concurrent), and the point in the research process in which integration or relationship between data collection and analysis occurs (Creswell, Fetters, & Ivankova, 2004; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). The study, reported herein, involves a sequential mixed-methods research design (Creswell & Clark, 2011; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010), including (a) the use of an online survey of employees and supervisors examining the impact of organizational support for AL, and (b) semistructured interviews with HR managers and executives elaborating on the nature of organizational support for AL.

We used quantitative and qualitative methods to inform the theoretical frame and elaborate on key aspects of both research questions 1 and 2. Our approach is an embedded data approach (Creswell & Clark, 2011) whereby we collected data sequentially to both explore the validity of the hypothe-sized model and to elaborate on the quantitative independent variable (per-ceived support for action learning). We clarifi ed the nature of support for AL as reported by HR managers and executives (from the same organiza-tions as survey respondents) with responsibility for an insight about their organization’s support for AL. By both exploring employee perceptions of their organizational support for AL quantitatively and elaborating on the nature of AL support qualitatively, elaboration regarding the nature and impact of organizational support for AL is extended.

These data collection and analysis approaches are unequal in that the dominant research paradigm for the study is quantitative with qualitative data supporting elaboration regarding survey respondent contexts associated with the independent variable—organizational support for AL. The quantita-tive portion of the study informed OST in relation to AL and answered research question 1. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used



to examine the hypothesized model, exploring interrelationships between perceive support for AL, affective, and performance-related reactions. SEM is a largely confi rmatory technique and supported our investigation through determination of the extent to which the hypothesized model, associated with OST, was valid.

Analysis of survey results provided key insights into affective and performance-related dynamics associated with organizational support for AL. Although data collection was sequential, the qualitative portion of the study informed both the theoretical aspects of the study and research question 2, and the independent variable in the quantitative portion of this study. By using a systematic approach to collecting qualitative data, we elaborate on the survey fi ndings in a manner that provides an in-depth description about the ways in which organizations support AL in a number of settings.

Sampling

A total of 268 participants from 28 companies responded to the online survey (Table 1) and 34 HR managers and executives participated in the semistruc-tured interviews.

Our sampling frame combined quantitative probability and qualitative purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2009). We used the Korea Action Learning

Table 1. Action learning survey respondents

Organization Industry Participant Supervisor

Daelim Industrial Construction 46 33

Doosan Heavy Industries Shipbuilding 1 0

Hyundai Oilbank Energy 34 13

KT (Korea Telecom) Telecommunications 26 16

LG Academy (LG Group’s HRD Center)*

LG Group18 9

LIG Insurance Insurance 11 4

Samsung Electronics (Gumi Business Unit)

Electronics10 10

Samsung HRD Center** Samsung Group 25 0

Samsung Life Insurance Insurance 9 1

Other (Beautiful Human Corp.)

Human Resources2 0

Total 182 86

Note. LG Academy and Samsung HRD Center provide corporate strategic-level training programs for the company affi liates; LG Academy included 10 company affi liates and Samsung HRD Center 8 company affi liates in their AL program.

196 Cho, Egan


Association (KALA) membership directory. The initial sampling of six large organizations was solicited at the 2008 Global Forum of Business-Driven AL, co-organized with the KALA in Seoul, South Korea. After the first author’s initial contact with these large companies, she sent an e-mail to HR managers listed in the KALA membership directory explaining the purpose of the survey and asking for an online survey with participants and their supervisors.

A survey was sent via HR managers and executives to a set of respon-dents, 412 AL participants and 352 supervisors from 28 companies. HR managers sent e-mail messages to participants and their supervisors, asking for participation in the study, and also sent weekly reminders. We received 268 total responses from AL participants (182) and their supervisors (86), resulting in a response rate of 35%. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for homogeneity indicated no signifi cant differences in survey responses across organization membership or job type.

Survey respondents worked in a variety of industries such as electronics, energy, telecommunications, construction, and insurance. Respondents were primarily men (90%), and their average age was 38.6, with 12.6 years (from 0.5 year to 29 years) of work experience. They worked in every corner of the organization, including management support (40%), sales (30%), production (20%), and trading (10%). No signifi cant differences between respondents and responses across reporting organizations were identifi ed using Pearson’s Chi-Square test—as all p-values were less than .0001 and indicated nonsig-nificant chi-square measures at the p < 0.05 level. Comparisons across responses suggested homogeneity between groups and/or organizations and low exposure to response bias (Paulhus, 1991).

It is important to note that these organization leaders indicated that employees and managers participated frequently in AL projects. These respon-dents were neither identifi ed as a member of a particular AL group, nor sam-pled in a manner that implied the survey was related to participation in any specifi c AL team or project. Therefore, the data do not violate the assumption of independence as these employees were not “nested” within a specific team—rather, they were asked to participate in the study because their orga-nization was a member of KALA and asked to react based on their individual perceptions regarding their organization.

Survey

An online survey was constructed. We used a questionnaire containing 5-point Likert-type scaled items (agree = 5; disagree = 1). Consistent with established research standards, previously validated items (Holton et al., 2000) were used to examine the relationships between employee attitudes, learning motivation, and performance. The following variables were associ-ated with previously validated item sets.



Perceived organizational support for action learning was measured using a four-item set created for this study, but contained very similar language to POS-related survey items (see Blume et al., 2010 and Tucker et al., 2008 for examples). A sample item is “Action learning is supported by my organization overall” (alpha = .80; all four EFA factors were well above .700).

Job Satisfaction was measured using a three-item set from Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). A sample item is “In general, I like work-ing here” (alpha = 0.80).

Person–organization fi t was a previously validated three-item set by Cable and Judge (1996) and Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001). A sample item is “My values match those of current employees in this organization” (alpha = 0.86).

Motivation to transfer learning survey items matched those fi ve previously utilized by Egan et al. (2004). A sample item is “I get excited when I think about applying new learning to my job” (alpha = 0.83).

Individual job performance (titled “My Performance”) was measured using a fi ve-item set from Porter and Lawler (1968), with employees reporting their relative percentile performance rating. A sample item is “My overall perfor-mance compared to my peers, I am in the ____%” (alpha = 0.91).

Two versions of the survey were developed according to two groups of respondents (participants and their supervisors). Two more items were added in the survey for supervisors: the main objective of using AL and an open-ended question about examples of individual/group/organization levels of per-formance led by AL. A back-translation of English to Korean was confi rmed by an experienced Korean doctoral student enrolled in a tier 1 U.S. research university. Before surveying, feedback on the questionnaire was obtained by three HR managers and the president of the KALA for face validity. Feedback provided was reflected in the final version of the survey. SurveyShare, an online survey tool, was utilized to create and deploy the online questionnaire. The online tool accepted only fully completed surveys; therefore, techniques aimed at handling missing data were unnecessary. Tests for reliability within the study variables were high, with Cronbach’s alpha levels ranging from 0.80 to 0.91.

Interviews

Details regarding the nature of organizational support for AL provided a rele-vant context for the quantitative portion of this study. Thirty-four HR manag-ers, executives, and CEOs were chosen from participating organizations for semi-structured interviews. Interview questions were aimed at elaboration of organizational support for AL. Data were collected fi rst by e-mail exchanges with each interviewee, followed by semistructured telephone interviews. Both email exchanges and interviews involved defi nitions, process, evaluation, organizational support, and AL’s impact on organizational performance (see Table 2).

198 Cho, Egan


Each telephone interview took about 30 minutes to 1 hour. Interview data were carefully written notes by the fi rst author. Data analysis in qualita-tive studies is emergent and is concurrent with data collection (Ellinger et al., 2007; Merriam, 2009). Interview data were analyzed using the “constant com-parison method” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 28), which involved comparing one segment of data with another to determine similarities and differences. As a result of the iterative process of the constant comparison method, we identi-fi ed six emergent themes. We used “member-checking” to establish credibility (content validity) (Creswell, 2009, p. 191). HR managers and executives were selected to review and provide comments on the initial analysis of interview data. Minor errors were identifi ed in the interview data—facts, numbers, and terms—and were corrected in fi nalizing this article.

Results

Details regarding results of the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis are presented below. The fi rst step was to understand employee and manager perspectives regarding the perceived individual impact of organizational sup-port for AL on their affective and performance related actions and reactions.

Quantitative Results

Quantitative analysis using SEM was undertaken on the survey data. The aforementioned Figure 1 represents the hypothesized model for this portion of the study addressing research question 1—What is the relationship between perceived organizational support for AL and employee attitudes, motivation, and performance in South Korean organizations as identifi ed by participants and their supervisors?

Model Evaluation. Table 3 provides means, standard deviations and cor-relations associated with each construct in the tested model. According to Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken’s (2003) assessment of the value of these cor-relation coeffi cients, r = 0.10 is considered a small effect; 0.15 a medium-small effect; 0.30 is considered a medium effect; 0.40 can be considered a medium-large effect; and 0.50 can be considered a large effect.

Six indices were used to determine the fi t of the model. The indicators used to determine fit are (a) goodness-of-fit-index (GFI) (best fit is

Table 2. Sample qualitative interview questions

1. Do you consider your organization to be a learning organization? Why? Why not?2. When asked “What is action learning,” how would a typical employee in your

organization respond?3. How are managers supporting/not supporting action learning?4. How valuable is action learning to your executive team?5. How is action learning impacting organization performance?



above 0.9); (b) adjusted goodness-of-fi t-index (AGFI) (best fi t above 0.9); (c) non-normed fi t index (NNFI) (best fi t near 1 but may be above 1) (Bentler & Bonnet, 1980); (d) comparative fi t index (CFI) (best fi t is above 0.9); (e) root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) (less than 0.08 desired); and (f) the likelihood ratio (LR) test chi-squared (signifi cance level of p < 0.01 or better indicates that the models being compared are signifi cantly different from one another).

Model Testing Results. Figure 2 provides standardized estimates for structural components and measurements for the hypothesized model.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Study Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Organization support for action learning

4.32 0.67 —

2. Job satisfaction 4.22 0.72 0.41 —

3. Person–organization fi t 4.10 0.69 0.26 0.60 —

4. Motivation to transfer learning

4.01 0.95 0.42 0.31 0.39 —

5. Individual job performance

3.89 0.81 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.23 —

Note. Correlations higher than 0.18 are p < 0.05; correlations higher than 0.26 are p < 0.01.

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model—Organizational Support for Action Learning, Employee Attitudes, Motivation, and

Performance

*p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Motivationto TransferLearning

Job Satisfaction

Person-Organization

Fit

Organizational Support for

AL

IndividualPerformance 0.19*

0.31**

0.25*0.33**

0.35**

0.43**

200 Cho, Egan


The structural model had a relative chi-square (χ2/df, CMIN/DF) greater than 3, the relative chi-square was 3.78 (χ2: 793.12; df: 230; p < 0.001). The four fi t measures mentioned above involving best fi ts close to 1 were as fol-lows: AGFI, 0.94; CFI, 0.97; GFI, 0.96; and NNFI, 0.98. Identifi ed residual (RMSEA) was small at 0.078. We used the bootstrap method (bootstrap sample size = 1,000) (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003) to deter-mine the confi dence intervals for mediation effects. Results (unstandardized values reported) indicated that job satisfaction and P-O fi t mediate perceived organizational support for AL to motivation to transfer (Product of coeffi cients – Estimate = −0.05; SE = 0.01; Z = −4.74; p < 0.001; Bootstrapping bias-corrected – Lower limit = −0.08; Upper limit = −0.02) and motivation to transfer mediates job satisfaction and P-O fit to performance (Product of coefficients—Estimate = −0.05; SE = 0.01; Z = −4.55; p < 0.001; Bootstrapping bias-corrected – Lower limit = −0.07; Upper limit = −0.02).

In both cases, the 95% confi dence interval bootstrap estimates for these indirect effects did not include zero, which suggests a signifi cant total media-tion effect. The squared multiple correlations for motivation to transfer was 0.24; indicating the proposed model accounted for approximately one fourth of the variance in motivation to transfer and nearly one twentieth (.036) of the variance for individual performance.

Test of the Hypothesized Model. In order to ensure the model was the best fi t for the data, we tested the hypothesized model in relation to three alternative models. The LR test Δχ2 discussed above was used to examine dif-ferences between the hypothesized model and the alternative models identi-fi ed. Three alternative models with LR test results are (a) an interaction model with motivation to transfer removed (Δχ2 = 48.22, df = 211, p < 0.01; AGFI, 0.89; CFI, 0.88; GFI, 0.87; NNFI, 0.91; RMSEA, 0.089); (b) an interac-tion model with job satisfaction and P-O fi t removed (Δχ2 = 54.81, df = 211, p < 0.01; AGFI, 0.87; CFI, 0.89; GFI, 0.88; NNFI, 0.90; RMSEA, 0.101); and (c) a fully saturated model with all possible interactions between the fi ve study variables (Δχ2 = 61.43, df = 211, p < 0.01; AGFI, 0.92; CFI, 0.90; GFI, 0.91; NNFI, 0.89; RMSEA, 0.082).

The SEM results from the hypothesized model fi t the data better than the alternative models. Although the fully saturated model generated several acceptable fi t measures, these did not fi t as well as the hypothesized model, nor could the fully saturated model be explained theoretically. These results provide additional support for the hypothesized interaction depicted in Figure 1 by indicating that alternative models 1–3 were signifi cantly different from the best-fi t hypothesized model.

Common Method Variance. When independent and dependent variable data are collected by a self-report survey, common method variance (CMV) is a possible problem. Following the recommendation of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), a CMV test was conducted on the survey data using the



unmeasured latent method factor. This procedure separates response variance into three components: trait, method, and random error (Loehlin, 2004). Rich-ardson, Simmering, and Sturman (2009) elaborates on four models for testing these three components—trait-only, method-only, trait/method, and trait/method-R. Tests of these component models are contrasted. If the method-only model fi ts the data signifi cantly less well than the trait-only model, there is sup-port that observed variance in independent and dependent variables could not be attributed to method alone. If the trait-only model fi ts signifi cantly less well than the trait/method model, evidence that trait-based and method variance are pres-ent is supported. If the trait/method model fi ts signifi cantly better than the trait/method-R model, there is evidence of bias due to common method variance.

As recommended by Richardson et al. (2009), trait/method and trait/method-R models were compared. There was no evidence of significant worsening of model fi t indices comparing χ2 values: χ2 (18.98) Δdf = 12, p > 0.05. All signifi cant relationships were maintained after controlling for the latent CMV factor. These fi ndings provide evidence that CMV is not an issue impacting quantitative fi ndings in this study.

Summary. Quantitative fi ndings, overall, strongly support the hypothe-sized model (Figure 1) and provide key insights regarding the impact of organi-zational support for AL. Survey items were assessed and translations were determined valid prior to survey deployment. All survey measures were deter-mined to be well above established research norms for questionnaire reliability. AL was found to be positively associated with job satisfaction and P-O fi t—and these two variables mediated the relationship between AL and motivation to transfer. Interactions between all study variables was consistent with the theo-rized relationship and support the proposed infl uence of organizational support for AL on employee affect, motivation, and performance. Therefore, OST was supported in the context of POS for AL. Qualitative fi ndings (below) elaborate further regarding the nature of support for AL and the infl uence of AL-related managerial support and involvement.

Qualitative Results

As aforementioned, qualitative analysis was undertaken on the interview data collected from 34 HR managers and executives to address research question 2—What is the nature of organizational support for AL in South Korean organiza-tions as identifi ed by managers and executives? As a result, organization and managerial levels emerged as major themes to frame organizational support for AL in two major ways (see Table 4).

Organization Level Support. In response to research question 2 (the nature of organizational support for AL), interviewees emphasized support for AL at the organizational level. Organizational learning and performance were emphasized as important to framing AL in terms of organization context and organizational motivation for support.

202 Cho, Egan


Organizational Learning. HR managers and executives who were inter-viewed identifi ed their organization’s learning culture to provide supportive environments for successful implementation of AL. Examples include the use of cyber learning for participant understanding of AL and basic management concepts (Samsung HRD Center and Samsung Life Insurance); voluntary small learning teams (Daelim Industrial and Samsung Electronics-Gumi BU); online and offl ine communities (Hyosung Corp. and Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance); and knowledge management systems (Daelim Industrial, Dongbu Corp, Hyundai Oilbank, and LG Electronics).

Organizational learning culture is well refl ected in each company’s defi ni-tion of AL. For example, Samsung HRD Center defi ned AL as “organizational culture innovation through problem-solving of corporate strategic issues.” Hyundai Oilbank, in the CEO’s terms, “has established the company’s unique work culture by fostering problem-solving skills, innovative thinking and leadership development.” In so doing, incentives for best practices in AL are used to make AL part of organizational learning culture such as profi t sharing for the best AL teams in Hyundai Oilbank and a mileage program similar to that of airlines for an AL team’s contributions to the organizational knowledge base in Daelim Industrial.

Organizational Performance. How is AL impacting organizational performance? To answer this question, interviewees provided many examples. As a Daelim Industrial HR manager opined, “AL practices have delivered a wide range of performance indices ranging from improved jobs and team culture to performance outcomes.” Participating companies used both qualita-tive and quantitative evaluation criteria to measure the success of AL. Examples of organizational performance indexes include Hyosung Corp.’s and Hanaro Telcom’s return-on-investment (ROI); Hyundai Oilbank’s increased financial performance index; LG Electronics’ Leadership Index; and LG Academy’s Great Workplace Index.

Companies using AL for organization development are clear about the use of quantitative performance indexes. For example, Hyundai Oilbank had undertaken 2,000 AL projects total between 2009 and its inception in 2002 and delivered profi ts of $244 million. The company has improved its manage-ment performance, including (a) debts have decreased from 430% to 186%, (b) accumulated profi ts have increased to $1.68 billion, and (c) their credit rating has been enhanced from BBB to A0. Daelim Industrial provided evi-dence that nearly all employees had participated in AL and there have been as

Table 4. Two levels of organizational support

Organizational Level Support Managerial Level Support

• Organizational Learning• Organizational Performance

• Managerial Involvement• Managerial Performance Evaluation



many as 300 learning teams in one year and 150 AL coaches. The company’s HR manager stated, “Action learning teams have hugely improved the com-pany’s adaptive capacity to the changing environment of the construction industry.”

Companies where AL for leadership development is practiced also used quantitative evaluation criteria to substantiate AL’s broader impact on organi-zational performance. For instance, Hyosung Corp., where a major objective is to develop talent, calculated ROI of AL in terms of increased income, cost savings, and better business processes. Samsung HRD Center developed 1,017 global leaders and delivered solutions to 192 strategic projects, of which 96% were implemented in the recent 11 rounds of AL programs. LG Electronics, as an HR manager assured, “has produced more than 80 percent of all high potentials in the company in the past 10 years that led to the company’s com-petitive advantage.”

In contrast, many companies like Samsung Life Insurance, Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance, and SK Telecom have used qualitative indexes of AL includ-ing sharing sales know-how, idea generation for improvement, and talent leadership development. SK Telecom’s HR manager remarks:

Action learning provides top management with an opportunity to get insights rather than immediate fi nancial outcomes. For example, an action learning team’s idea of using unifi ed landline/wireless services was later adopted in the company and delivered considerable profi ts in the telecommunications market.

Even in the case of Hyundai, where fi nancial performance is highly valued, individual competencies and organizational culture change, infl uenced by AL, are often communicated qualitatively but are of equal importance. As a result, Hyundai was ranked the number one energy company for customer satisfac-tion in 2007 and awarded the best practice of organization innovation through AL by the government in 2008. A Performance Enhancement Team leader succinctly states:

Action learning participants’ systematic problem-solving processes and enhanced job performance are the most valuable outcomes of action learning because those have become the foundation of the company’s competitive advantage. Whenever problems at work occur on a daily basis, employees see it through from a systems perspective built upon through the action learning process and solve the problems through teamwork. And these are the common practices deeply ingrained in Hyundai Oilbank.

Managerial Level Support. The managerial level of organizational support by AL, according to interviewees, involves two emergent themes: managerial involvement and managerial performance evaluation.

204 Cho, Egan


Managerial Involvement. Organizational support for AL at the manage-rial level takes many forms such as managers and executives acting as AL sponsors and learning coaches in the AL process. Sponsors select AL projects and participants, clarify outputs, communicate with stakeholders (e.g., CEOs), motivate participants, provide physical and personnel resources, and make decisions regarding implementation and follow-up activities. Sponsors participate in annual workshops to support AL processes. For example, Hyundai Oilbank has a very clear definition of managers as sponsors. According to the company’s manager in the Performance Enhancement Team for AL, “Action learning team leaders play a team sponsorship role, while executives play a role for implementation.” Managerial sponsorship of AL, according to the company’s CEO, is recognized as “among the most signifi cant key success factors for AL’s contribution to the organization’s performance.”

Learning coaches help participants learn the content of the project and problem-solving process using questions, feedback, and refl ection in the AL process. Companies have heavily used external learning coaches (e.g., profes-sors) in the past years but recently several companies such as Hyundai Oilbank and Daelim Industrial are developing their own internal learning coaches to enhance competencies and leadership skills of team leaders (managers) through training—with the help of KALA. To recognize the impor-tance of learning coaches, Daelim Industrial awards learning coaches who work with outstanding teams.

Managerial Performance Evaluation. Organizational support also includes evaluation of managerial support for AL as part of the managerial performance appraisal system. The inclusion of AL in managerial performance appraisals reflects these organizations’ strong commitment to employee development. For example, an HR executive from Hyosung Corp. detailed, “Managerial support for employee development is guaranteed through manager evaluation and manager promotion is closely related to employees’ mandatory training points.” Although Samsung Electronics (Gumi BU) has no standardized AL-related evaluation criteria, most managers implicitly practice employee development, which is part of the company’s learning culture.

In most cases, managers and executives are evaluated on employee development and coaching. Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance has specifi ed manager evaluation in its employee development program in which managers are evaluated on employee development (80%) and coaching (20%). It is com-mon at Daelim Industrial that team members’ failure to participate in required training is refl ected negatively in managerial performance evaluations.

Summary. Although specifi c actions associated with organizational sup-port for AL varied across fi rms, it is clear that each organization interviewed had in place a set of commitments, actions, and policies that reinforced the relevance and importance for employees and managers who participated in AL. Interviewees indicated that their companies not only signaled the importance of AL itself, but the importance of employee and manager contributions to it.



As Revans claimed, AL is fundamentally a “learner-centered” process (Dilworth & Boshyk, 2010, p. 270), and, therefore, corporate declaration of the importance of AL concurrently signals the involvement in AL as meaningful for the orga-nization. Interviewees repeatedly touched on the team-based nature of AL and the importance of each individual to the AL process. In turn, AL was commu-nicated as a valuable employee and management development tool.

Discussion

We investigated organizational support for AL practices in South Korean orga-nizations and key outcomes associated with AL. In the research context, where there is a dearth of well-designed systematically organized AL studies, this study provides meaningful insights regarding AL for research and theory, and practices.

Synthesis of Findings

Eisenberger et al. (1986) proposed that employees form beliefs regarding the extent to which their organization supports their needs and values their con-tributions; POS is a valued assurance to employees that they are supported by their organizations in carrying out their jobs effectively. When examining POS for AL, we assessed the impact of AL-related support on affective, motiva-tional, and performance related outcomes. We determined the model to have accounted for more than one-quarter of the variance in motivation to transfer and about one twentieth of the variance in individual performance. These findings supported that organizational support for AL positively impacts employee and manager attitudes and approaches to effectively carrying out their jobs and everyday work.

The positive impact of POS for AL supports the need for better under-standing regarding practices infl uencing survey respondent perceptions as well as informing a more general understanding of the ways in which organi-zations support AL. Qualitative results established that each organization interviewed had in place a set of commitments, actions, and policies that rein-forced the relevance and importance for employees and managers that partici-pated in AL. These organizations not only signaled the importance of AL itself, but the importance of employee and manager contributions to it. Managers were found to play a key role in supporting, reinforcing, and even participat-ing in AL-related incentives. Based on these study fi ndings, we have a better understanding of both how AL is supported and the positive impact that such support has on employees.

Research and Theory

Our study fi ndings establish both overt support by organizational leaders for AL and for employee and manager self-reported perceptions that the

206 Cho, Egan


organization was supporting AL. By reinforcing the importance of employee and managerial participation in AL, OST is supported.

OST asserts that POS is strongly associated with positive employee affective responses to their organization and that such support infl uences employees’ sense of obligation to support their organization in achieving collective objec-tives (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Perceived reciprocation by the organization to individual demonstrations of affective and behavioral alignment are likely to lead to further strengthening of employee performance and increase employee perceptions of their fi t to the organization (Kristof, 1996).

Organizations demonstrate their support for AL through managerial investment of time and energy in the support and promotion of AL, such as AL sponsorship, formal incentives and promotion, and having AL featured in performance appraisals. This is in addition to positive individual outcomes found in the quantitative portion of this study. Many interviewees indicated that their organizations established incentives to managers who support AL and, as a result of organizational and managerial support, experienced positive organizational and managerial performance outcomes.

A small number of articles have examined HRD-related efforts as part of POS. Cho and Egan (2009, 2010) noted that AL-related outcomes such as learning, learning transfer, and performance have been unexplored. Our study fi ndings support OST’s general premises that organizational support for AL is associated with employee satisfaction, sense of fit with the organization, motivation to transfer, and performance improvement. Beyond being a key contribution to AL research, this study provides support that organization and managerial action in support of HRD-related activities aligns with OST and general POS. HRD practices, therefore, add credence to the notion that support for HRD practices align with theorized OST and POS outcomes.

By elaborating qualitatively on the nature of support for AL, we also establish not only the importance of top-down and organization-wide sup-port, but also that managers play a key role in POS for AL and, likely, HRD. Although established interactions between study variables (such as the rela-tionship between P-O fit and job satisfaction) are similar across several national contexts, this study provides insight into South Korean organizational contexts specifi cally.

Practice

The quantitative results from this study suggest that organizational support for AL leads to several positive outcomes, while the qualitative fi ndings provide elaboration regarding the ways in which organizations can support AL and resulting performance outcomes. Our study fi ndings suggest that organiza-tions may use AL to positively impact several aspects of employee learning and performance and that the assessment of employee perceived support for AL may be warranted not only for evaluative purposes, but in support of a



broader understanding of the impact of AL practice on employee and organi-zational success.

Among other things, sponsors surfaced as a crucial form of managerial involvement in AL. Sponsors are those who make decisions in projects and participants. In particular, top management’s sponsorship has been a key success factor for AL (J. Kim, 2007; Seo, 2009). To ensure sponsorship, practitioners should provide diverse programs to help sponsors understand and support AL in the AL process. For example, in the sponsor workshops, practitioners emphasize the important roles of participants (managers and executives) as sponsors, which can also be applied to other contexts, including:

• Communicate constantly with participants throughout the AL process.• Ensure participants have time for AL activities.• Provide personnel and physical resources.• Be present in fi nal team presentations.• Provide feedback on solutions and implement follow-up activities.

As AL practices are becoming more visible as a leadership and organiza-tion development tool, a critical success factor has been whether AL is contin-ued in the process of internal/external changes in the organization. Several large companies (Hyosung Corp., CJ, and Hanaro Telecom), in spite of their successful track records in using AL, do not foresee using AL. Reasons for discontinuation of AL include decreased sponsor (e.g., CEO) support (CJ); AL leader resignations (Hyosung Corp.); and M&As (Hanaro Telecom). In other cases, existing AL programs have been downsized due to leadership changes such as a new performance-driven CEO (LG Electronics) and head of HRD (Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance). In contrast, Hyundai Oilbank has con-tinued practicing AL for the past 9 years with exceptional support from a recently retired former CEO who initiated AL programs as a management innovation tool.

Study Limitations

When it comes to the limitations for this study, we had a moderate-to-low response rate (35%), though this means our response rate is well within a common response range established by Baruch and Holtom (2008; mean = 52% with a lower bound SD of 31% an upper bound SD of 73%). We suc-cessfully recruited a set of respondents, participants (182) and their supervi-sors (86), to examine organizational support for AL from the two major stakeholder perspectives. We invested extra efforts to gather more responses with the help of HR managers and executives but had limited responses, particularly from participants’ supervisors. Although our ANOVA and chi-square results support respondent homogeneity, more could have been done to ensure respondents and supervisors are not nested within respondent

208 Cho, Egan


groups. Due to their busy schedules, it is likely that managers did not respond to our requests to complete the survey. Because of this unequal number of responses between the two groups and a moderate-to-low response rate, we should be conservative in interpreting the results of our quantitative analysis.

Our study fi ndings explained a relatively small amount of variance in performance using a self-versus-other comparison whereby employees rated their own performance in relation to their perceptions of others’ performance. There was no way to determine whether these respondents had been previ-ously exposed to evidence contrasting their performance with that of peers. Future studies should use more objective measures of individual performance both on the job and in relationship to AL-related outcomes.

In the case of our sequential mixed methods design, whereby a quantita-tive survey was deployed fi rst, these results are more vulnerable to researcher predispositions and, as a result, more structured qualitative inquiry than if conducted concurrently. While CMV was not found to infl uence study fi nd-ings, a second source of quantitative data would improve future efforts to explore outcomes associated with support for AL.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the strong support for the hypothesized model (Figure 1) and for OST in this study suggests that employees who perceive their organizations to be supportive of AL will have positive reactions about their work and organization, and these reactions are likely to lead to greater motivation to transfer learning and improved performance. Prior anecdotal support regarding participant perceptions of AL, leading to positive outcomes, may well explain the recent rapid growth of AL practices in South Korea. And these empirical results provide initial support validating anecdotal arguments regarding positive outcomes associated with AL.

Future studies should examine OST in other cultural contexts and strive to elaborate further on the specifi c impact of organizational support for AL, including specifi c outcomes associated with individual and organizational success. Future use of a concurrent mixed methods design is recommended, as the sequential design, reported herein, involved more semistructured/ structured qualitative interview questions and our qualitative process was vulnerable to alignment with the assumptions of the quantitative design. To better understand the potential for shared/overlapping responses, related quantitative examinations should carefully detail the relationships/interrelationships among study respondents. Each method deployed indepen-dently may lead to more elaboration and a different level of elaboration by interviewees.

Longitudinal studies and studies detailing key aspects of AL, the manner in which it is implemented and supported, and qualitative details regarding



organizational and individual performance outcomes are recommended. Job satisfaction has been strongly supported in prior research as an inverse cor-relate to turnover, so closer examination of the impact of support for AL on turnover is warranted. Further inquiry could also be improved by reducing or eliminating exposure to CMV. For instance, a measure other than self-report or a distal performance measure would be helpful in better understanding outcomes related to support for AL. And contrasts between organizational support for AL between fi rms could be formed based on the future develop-ment of an AL support typology.

As established earlier, both systematic research on AL and mixed meth-ods studies in HRD are rare. Overall, we have established the value that sys-tematic research in AL can contribute to both AL and HRD. We also took an additional step toward further establishing the relevance of mixed methods studies for research in HRD. Perhaps most promisingly, we have added to the gradual advance of HRD further establishing the positive impact of HRD-related practices on employee attitudes, perceived support, learning, and performance.

References

Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resources practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99–118.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63–105.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bartlett, K. R. (2001) The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A study in the health care fi eld. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335–352.

Bartlett, K. R., & Kang, D. S. (2004). Training in organizational commitment in response to industry and organizational change in New Zealand and the United States. Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 423–440.

Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139–1160.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Signifi cance tests and goodness of fi t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 16(4), 1065–1105.

Boshyk, Y., & Dilworth, R. L. (Eds.) (2010). Action learning: History and evolution. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.

Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fi t perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fi t, job choice decisions, and organiza-tional entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311.

210 Cho, Egan


Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore (Ed.), Assessing organizational change (pp. 71–137). New York, NY: Wiley.

Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person– organization fi t. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349.

Cho, Y., & Bong, H.-C. (2010). Identifying balanced AL: Cases of South Korean practices. Action Learning: Research and Practice 7(2), 137–150.

Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 8(4), 431–462.

Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2010). The state of the art of action learning research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 163–180.

Choi, W., & Jacobs, R. L. (2011). Infl uence of formal learning, personal learning orientation, and supportive learning environment on informal learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(3), 239–257.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods procedures. In Research design (3rd ed.) (pp. 203–225). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Fetters M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine 2(1), 7–12.

Cullen, J., & Turnbull, S. (2005). A meta-review of the management development literature. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 335–355.

Dickenson, M., Burgoyne, J., & Pedler, M. (2010). Virtual action learning: Practices and challenges. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 7(1), 59–72.

Dilworth, R. L., & Boshyk, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Action learning and its applications. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Edmonson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2008). Three perspectives on team learning. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 269–314.

Egan, T. M. (2008). The relevance of organizational subculture for motivation to transfer learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(4), 299–322.

Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effect of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279–301.

Ehrhardt, K., Miller, J. S., Freeman, S. J., & Hom, P. W. (2011). An examination of the relation-ship between training comprehensiveness and organizational commitment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(4), 459–489.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armelo, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812–820.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

Ellinger, A., Elmadag, A., & Ellinger, A. (2007). An examination of organizations’ frontline service employee development practices. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(3), 293–314.

Fornes, S. L., Rocco, T. S., & Wollard, K. K. (2008). Workplace commitment. Human Resource Development Review, 7(3), 339–357.

Gaertner, S. (2000). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover models. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 479–493.

Gegenfurtner, A., Veermans, K., Festner, D., & Gruber, H. (2009). Motivation to transfer training. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 403–423.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine.



Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Holton, E. F., Bates, R., & Ruona, W. E. (2000). Development of a generalized Learning Transfer System Inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333–360.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.

Kim, J. (2007). Action learning factors perceived by action learning participants in companies in South Korea. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241.

Kim, T., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person-organization fi t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232–241.

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001). A holistic approach towards motivation to learn. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(4), 233–246.

Krishnan, S. K., & Singh, M. (2010). Outcomes of intention to quit of Indian IT professionals. Human Resource Management, 49(3), 419–435.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fi t. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’

fi t at work. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.Kroth, M., & Keeler, C. (2009). Caring as a managerial strategy. Human Resource Development

Review, 8(4), 506–531. Kuhn, J. S., & Marsick, V. J. (2005). Action learning for strategic innovation in mature

organizations. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1), 27–48. Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of

person–job and person–organization fi t. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 454–470.Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4), 370–390.Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Madera, J. M., Steele, S. T., & Beier, M. (2011). The temporal effect of training utility perceptions

on adopting a trained method: The role of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(1), 69–86.

Marquardt, M. J., & Banks, S. (2010) Theory to practice: Action learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(2), 159–162.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Morse, J. (2010). Procedures and practice of mixed method design. In A. Tashakkori &

C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.) (pp. 339–352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 736–749.

O’Neil, J., & Marsick, V. J. (2007). Understanding action learning. New York, NY: AMACOM.Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, &

L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Pedler, M. (Ed.) (2011). Action learning in practice (4th ed.). Hampshire, England, Gower.

212 Cho, Egan


Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Brook, C. (2005). What has action learning learned to become? Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2(1), 49–68.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey.Preacher K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculation for the Sobel test. Retrieved from

http://www.psych.ku.edu/preacher sobel/sobel.htm#ref Raelin, J. A. (2008). Work-based learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reio, T. G. (2009). Contributing to the emergent research method conversation. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 20(2), 143–146. Revans, R. W. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. London, England: Chartwell-Bratt. Revans, R. (2011). ABC of action learning. Surrey, England: Gower. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of three paradigms:

Examining post hoc statistical corrections for common method variance from three divergent perspectives. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800.

Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and front-line employee job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–1030.

Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 395–407.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personal Psychology, 40, 437–454. Schneider, B., Kristof, A. L., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1997). What is this thing called

fi t? In N. R. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), Handbook of selection and appraisal (pp. 393–412). London, England: Wiley.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fi fth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday. Seo, Y. T. (2009). Key success factors in evolutionary step of organization development type action

learning programs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seoul School of Integrated Sciences & Technologies, Korea (in Korean).

Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Chen, X., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social exchange in work settings. Management and Organization Review, 5(3), 289–302.

Shore, L. M. & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support (pp. 149–164). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tom, V. R. (1971). The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6(5), 573–592.

Tucker, S., Chmiel, N., Turner, N., Hershcovis, M. S., & Stride, C. B. (2008). Perceived organi-zational support for safety and employee safety voice. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 319–330.

Tushman, M. L., O’Reilly, C. A., Fenollosa, A., Kleinbaum, A. M., & McGrath, D. (2007). Relevance and rigor. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(3), 345–362.

Tziner, A. (1987, August). The relationship of some distal and proximal factors with the extent of use of political considerations in performance appraisal. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada.

Vancouver, J. B., & Schmidt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person–organization fi t. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333–352.

Vince, R. (2004). Action learning and organizational learning: Power, politics and emotion in organization. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1, 63-78.



Vince, R. (2008). Learning-in-action and learning inaction: Advancing the theory and practice of critical action learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 5(2), 93–104.

Wagner, J. A., & LePine, J. A. (1999). Effects of participation on performance and satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 84, 719–725.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.

Wegge, J., Schmidt, K., Parkes, C., & van Dick, K. (2007). “Taking a sickie”: Job satisfaction and job involvement as interactive predictors of absenteeism in a public organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 77–89.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Review, 12(2), 173–194.

Witt, L. A., & Nye, L. G. (1992). Organizational goal congruence and job attitudes revisited (FAA–AM Publication No. 92-8, pp. 92–98). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, Offi ce of Aviation Medicine.

Yonjoo Cho is with Indiana University.

Toby Egan is with the Purdue School of Engineering and Technology–IUPUI and the Purdue University Graduate School.

Organizational Support for Action Learning in South Korean ...

Documents